-
-
Yes, the ref could easily have failed to spot the low blow if he had been in a different position. Low blows often get missed in the chaos of a fight, or ignored by refs, for whatever reason. But this low blow wasn't missed and it wasn't ignored. The ref made the right call and the right man won. Now dry your eyes and stfu about it.Comment
-
Yeah, I do agree.
As an Usyk fan, had the pleasure of sitting 3rd row when he KO'd Tony Bellew, I'd much rather him consider retirement at this point.
You've beaten what most consider the man of the modern era in Fury twice. There's not much point racking up these wins that yes whilst are good wins, aren't doing much more for the legacy and the older he gets the more likely it is he'll lose to someone he had no business losing to.
Those Fury fights had to have took something out of him also. Who's to say he's the same guy for his next fight? He may well not be.Comment
-
I thought it was belly button, but then you have to guess where belly button is? Cos you get boxers who pull there shorts high up with belt line near chest? So I'm sure refs allow punches below belt line. And usyk shorts probably weren't too high up.
So ref has little time to make decision and when he said it was low im sure he then had to standby his decisionLast edited by hugh grant; 04-18-2025, 04:47 PM.Comment
-
The atmosphere at Usyk/Bellew gave me goose bumps watching it on TV!
Usyk has had a lot of fights, if you include his amateur career, and he trains like a maniac by all accounts. It's amazing that he can still fight at elite level, in his late 30's, with that high energy, reflex dependent style he has. I would hate to see him lose to someone who couldn't live with him at his peak.Comment
-
I answered this and linked it already. They did file a protest for the fouls in the Ward fight.
The disconnect here is possibly that you think the belt line refers to the top of the shorts, and it doesn't. Because fighters wear their shorts in different spots, the beltline has always been defined by the line passing from the top of the hips through the navel. That's been the case since boxing rules were formalized, and is true of all modern boxing matches, as well as historically understood as well. You can see the belt line diagrammed as such in old boxing texts dating back before 1850. The beltline meant the imaginary line where you'd wear your belt to hold up your pants, not the top of wherever you wore your shorts, because boxers would usually wear shorts that were larger, especially after groin protection was mandated. But ignorant fans conflated the two, and that's led to much confusion over the years.
Another example of fans screwing up the terminology is from the old saw "to be the champ, you have to beat the champ". That actually means that the champ retains his belt in the event of a tie, so you have to actually win in order to become the new champ. You can win by a controversial split decision, you just have to win. But fans at some point started thinking that meant you had to win the fight clearly or you didn't deserve to win, which is, of course, hogwash. Many of the ATGs won belts as challengers on narrow split decisions. But that false narrative persists to this day, even espoused by the likes of the great Roy Jones Jr, and may have contributed some to judge favoritism of the A-side, although I think corruption and financial incentives had more to do with it.
Comment
-
Tweet
Comment